I do not wish to have any increased traffic in Sherman Oaks. There is already an over use of our roads.
Why is there a consideration for the Sunkist building project?
As a community member and a constituent, I thank you for your efforts thus far in protecting our community from over-development. We know the principals of IMT Sherman Oaks Project are currently seeking your support to obtain changes in zoning, entitlements and other exceptions in order to build this project as they wish.

Please know our community is keenly watchful and EXTREMELY CONCERNED regarding several hugely-problematic issues: Insufficient Public Services (fire/police), Aesthetics and Design (not fitting Community Character), Loss of Trees and current Open Space, Construction Disruption, Air/Noise Quality–and the compounded impacts other large, pending developments nearby will bring! But two issues—Traffic Congestion and Parking—will inflict massive problems from the outset (and forever should comprehensive mitigation measures fail to be incorporated NOW). Unless these issues are fully addressed, this development will cause huge negative impacts–not only to adjacent neighborhoods but to Sherman Oaks at large! The Draft Environmental Impact Report and its traffic study are severely deficient in failing to accurately evaluate impacts, and failure to present appropriate mitigations. Thus, the flawed DEIR fails entirely to provide any reasonable justification to the developer-sought planning exemptions.

The LADOT recognizes the need to include heaviest traffic days in their Guidelines Section 2.2c page 15. HOWEVER:

–The Sunkist study was done on a day and time which completely fail to illustrate true area traffic flow! The study, performed on a January weekday between 7-10 a.m. and 3-6 p.m., wholly misrepresents actual traffic for this location. Traffic generated by the Westfield Fashion Square Mall is not simple rush hour traffic, rather, it comprises a significant amount of holiday shopping traffic throughout the year (which was completely omitted from the traffic study!). Area residents and passersby are well aware that early January is the year’s lowest mall traffic period! Valid traffic studies must not only represent typical traffic—it must include an area’s worst traffic periods. Consider that Westfield mall traffic drastically increases during many periods throughout the year: Halloween Special Events – 1 Week; Thanksgiving and Black Friday – 4 Weeks; Christmas – 4+ Weeks; New Year’s Sales/Christmas Returns – 2 Weeks; Valentines Day – 1 Week; Mothers Day – 1 Week; Fathers Day – 1 Week; Memorial Day – 1 Week; 4th of July – 1 Week; Labor Day – 1 Week. PLUS numerous other Special Sales and Events Publicized by the Mall. Encompassing well over FOUR months of every year, these high traffic periods MUST be included in a comprehensive study in order for it to be deemed accurate! These high-traffic periods necessitate the Mall to employ special traffic control at several entrances to insure functioning traffic flow. Then factor in the traffic impact of the Mall’s approved expansion plans (up to 200,000 sq. ft. beyond the current square footage and client draw).

–Additionally, many times the traffic is backed up for left turns in every direction at Riverside and Hazeltine. This backup was not addressed or noted in the traffic study, and thus no mitigation measures were suggested.

–Significant traffic at the signal on Hazeltine under the 101 Freeway already causes backup beyond Valleyheart to the north. With this intersection being one of only two full access points to the Sunkist site, this situation will immediately become untenable. Again, this was not even a consideration in the survey and mitigations.

–Likewise, the traffic back-up on Woodman in both directions near the 101 is significant.

–The traffic study (under)estimated that the project will create approximately 4,000 car trips per day. According to the study, this is considered to be an insignificant impact on the current traffic. To believe this requires a complete suspension of reality!

PARKING must be a major consideration for any project in this area. Several issues have either not been addressed, or unworkable conclusions were presented:

–The project has used many “credits” to reduce the number of parking spaces required. Any mass transit convenient to this location is in reality grossly insufficient to claim these credits by LADOT guidelines 4.7a Parking Demand and Utilization Analyses page 23.

–A significant number of street parking spaces will be removed from use. No offset has been included in the parking requirement.

–The type of parking required has not been described. Free parking, restricted access parking, tenant parking, and tenant guest parking are not specified.

–We note the inclusion of an overabundance of bike parking was utilized to lessen required car parking.

–Added measures must be employed in order that ALL parking needed by this change of use be anticipated and provided for on the property. Additional steps must be considered to facilitate on-premises parking and not spill over into adjacent neighbors, i.e. necessitating restricted parking districts, control of pedestrian traffic onto complex, etc.

These are but a few of the issues community members have grave concerns about. The community is hopeful that you, Councilmember Ryu, will protect your constituents and insure that these and other concerns are fully addressed without delay. This project will surely change the nature of the Sherman Oaks Community near and far. The effects will be permanent once the project is built. The issues won’t resolve themselves & traffic will never lessen!

]]>Comment on Sunkist Building Aerial by Lisa Howardhttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/sunkist-photos-images-of-proposed-project/img_1332/#comment-2528
Fri, 12 May 2017 20:45:53 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMG_1332.jpg#comment-2528I drive by here every day on my way to work, turning off Riverside and on to Hazeltine on my way to Brentwood. I absolutely cannot imagine these buildings in that small space! Not to mention losing the view of the beautiful and unique Sunkist building. I don’t even want to think about the traffic… Thank you for all you are doing!
]]>Comment on Our Cause hits the Front Page of Sherman Oaks Studio City News by paul acernohttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/2016/09/15/our-cause-hits-the-front-page-of-sherman-oaks-studio-city-news/#comment-2374
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:24:51 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?p=223#comment-2374I have lived here for 24 years and would like to maintain a safe , quaint environment for our families and neighbors, not to mention that in moving ahead with these plans will destroy 50 or so trees that are at least 100 years old. I will be at the meeting to fight toward our stance against this
]]>Comment on The Changing Neighborhood! Sherman Oaks Sunkist Building Project by Connie Raineshttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/2014/07/08/hello-world/#comment-2371
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:20:06 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/wp/?p=1#comment-2371I will do everything in my power to stop this monstrosity from being put up in our nice, quaint neighborhood that is already over populated. People want to move to Sherman Oaks because it has these qualities, nice, family oriented, and by putting this massive apartment complex in this area will sure remove these qualities. Adding more and more apartments, slapping up tall walls, there is no more quaintness, no more sky to view, you cannot even see the tops of trees anymore because developers are building more and more and taller and taller. Horrible, terrible, and with absolutely NO NO NO regard for the people who live there already. You want to add 1000’s of more people, MORE cars, MORE traffic, and just the kind of atmosphere that is unwelcome in our neighborhood. ALSO, I bet most of you who are not thinking about it haven’t thought of the reality that our PROPERTY VALUES WILL DECREASE immensely because of the over population and just crappy, terrible, generic looking apartment buildings. Shameful, and greed is just rampant. This developer is just greedy and wants to slap up apartment building after ugly apartment building. Terrible, deplorable, and I will do everything in my power to stop it!!! Very insulted and very angry. I have a say in what happens in my neighborhood and you will hear more from me!
]]>Comment on Mission by Sarah Rayhttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/mission/#comment-2257
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 00:47:02 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?page_id=57#comment-2257Thank you so much for creating this site. I have been unable to attend any meetings, but thanks to a template from Wendy, I voiced concerns to Ryu’s office. Anything I can do to help the team spread the news to other neighbors please let me know. I have a graphic design background as well as a formal education in interior design (and some landscape architecture).

IMT really has an opportunity to do something great with the site. They could choose to incorporate a design that complements the Sunkist building and references the history of the area. I don’t have much hope looking at the designs of their current recent constructions, but I’m not opposed to making a lot of noise about it.

]]>Comment on September 8 2016 Meeting by Annie Maniscalcohttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/2016/09/07/september-8-2016-meeting/#comment-2215
Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:48:57 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?p=205#comment-2215I’m sick of trying for the last 20 years for the zoning department to do the right thing regarding these big money companies taking over these gorgeous neighborhoods and over bldg . Look what they did to the west side . Tragic jams every where . It needs to stop ASAP .
]]>Comment on Images of Proposed Project by Jan Wieringahttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/sunkist-photos-images-of-proposed-project/#comment-2205
Thu, 08 Sep 2016 15:18:54 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?page_id=95#comment-2205I would like to be added to your email list for all info regarding this project as we have a similar project going into my community near Hancock Park and our Draft EIR is due out any week now. I am spearheading the blog and info regarding this project by the developer called CIM and I want to learn as much as I can about the EIR process as possible
]]>Comment on Mission by Craig Raineshttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/mission/#comment-2177
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 21:21:51 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?page_id=57#comment-2177Yes I was out of town for the last mtg….The EIR will allow for public comment though often those comments unless carrying a large collective weight get mitigated with trivial measures….The traffic study could bear out some redesign too…also in the EIR they have to provide alternatives……The egress and ingress onto the site could be problematic and if this project goes through I will never ever step foot into trader joes..

BTW I am a landscape architect with Recreation and Parks Advance Planning and I live on 4817 Tyrone ave.bikearch@gmail.com

]]>Comment on Contact Us by Blair Thompsonhttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/contact-us/#comment-84
Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:01:50 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?page_id=53#comment-84Hey Gerald, This was my take on the SONC Land Use Committee Meeting. I know we have a long fight ahead, but this was a better result than I expected.

Blair

]]>Comment on Contact Us by Gerald A. Silverhttp://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/contact-us/#comment-79
Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:33:41 +0000http://sunkistbuildingexpansion.com/?page_id=53#comment-79Studio City Sherman Oaks Encino News – October 2014
Sunkist – More of the Same
By Gerald A. Silver

IMT Capital, LLC is seeking to build a massive mixed-use project on the 8.3-acre Sunkist Growers building site at 14130 and 14154t Riverside Dr. in Sherman Oaks. The Sunkist building would be retained as part of the expansion project that includes 298 multi-family residential units and 39,241 sq. ft. of commercial with 7,241 sq. ft. of restaurant use. This project will add 359,795 sq. ft. to the existing 128,674 sq. ft. creating a mega-project with a little under one-half million sq. ft.
The Sunkist Project has been described as Il Villaggio’s Toscano’s Unidentical Twin. Together they will suck up the last drop of water, energy, solid waste and infrastructure and are guaranteed to create more traffic nightmares. IMT has labeled the mega-development project “ICON Sherman Oaks”. Gone will be the view of the attractive, well designed Sunkist building with its greenery and open space — replaced by three huge high-density 296 unit apartment/commercial buildings. Residents should not be surprised that the Planning Dept. will walk through the usual EIR charade and when finished will rubber stamp the project “OK”

Developers line up a few supporters, most of whom do not live near the project. Money and political influence are used to lobby the project through the entitlement process. The result is more traffic, congestion and neighborhood problems.

On July 15, 2014 IMT held a “Scoping Meeting” in Sherman Oaks that described the project replete with large display placards but with scant details. The blissful artist’s renderings overshadowed the full scope of the project. IMT is seeking significant entitlements, known in planning jargon as “discretionary actions.”

They are asking for a Vesting Tract Map in order to subdivide the property from C2 office to create a group of “air space” lots. They also seek zone changes to convert the current parking areas to RAS3 zoning. RAS zones were adopted by the City Council in 2002 to encourage greater density development along “underutilized commercial transportation” corridors. RAS3 zones permit massive structures with dense apartments or condos above ground floor retail.

Over-shadowing the entire entitlement process are the political considerations, and they play a big part. Much of the final outcome rests on the acceptance or denial of the project by the Councilmember who controls CD 4. The process currently hinges on the wishes of Councilmember Tom LaBonge, who had no problem supporting the massive Il Villaggio Toscano project that is now being litigated by unhappy community residents. Nor should residents anticipate much resistance from the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council that approved the Il Villaggio Toscano project. Expect more of the same.